Author Topic: Putting Full Recovery First  (Read 9520 times)

Ken Stringer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Putting Full Recovery First
« on: April 03, 2012, 06:00:34 PM »
We are seeking your views on the document "Putting full Recovery First", for those that have not seen it please follow this link http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol-drugs/drugs/recovery-roadmap?view=Binary


The Alliance will be issuing a statement shortly but wish to take your views into account when doing so

What do you think the impact of this document will be?
What are the  positives and negatives of the document
How does this document relate to specific needs or concerns that you may have?
Has this document helped you to understand current approaches to national drug policy?

Please let us know how you would like The Alliance to respond

Ken

sapphire

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,874
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2012, 04:19:02 PM »
Personally I think it's a load of old bollocks and will only cause yet more problems for those of us that wish to remain on maintenance scripts.

This 'Freedom from Dependance' crap has caused loads of problems already.

The Alliance should (imo) be saying that people that wish to remain maintained should not keep getting pestered into reduction they don't want. It's counter prodictive, people get pushed to reduce, and then end up relapsing, what's the point of that?!

It seems that the 'real recovery is only abstinence' brigade are determined to sway the governments decision makers against MMT, despite the fact that there are loads of people doing well on it, we are just not that visible as we tend to get on with the business of living rather than living all things "recovery".

Golden

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2012, 03:36:47 PM »
The government have to look at the facts:
Rehabs and other support such as NA has a HUGE relapse rate. MMT may be frowned upon by those VERY FEW who managed to get and stay clean for any length of time, perhaps because they have very little understanding of underlying issues surrounding opiate addiction such as self medication for example.
The mental health services in the UK are shocking, waiting lists up to a year for substandard "treatment" (one hour a week!) and many relapse because the underlying issues are completely ignored and the general concensus is to blame the problems on the heroin addiction, when in reality, the heroin addiction came about as a result of pre-existing problems.
Examples of this are childhood trauma, abuse, rape= PTSD, also seen frequently in ex-service personnel. Depression, anxiety, other issues, which left untreated lead addicts back to repeated relapse and at worst, suicide.
The forced withdrawl of MMT is wrong. Different people respond to different treatments, but no one will recover with no treatment at all, or substandard treatment, because the underlying issues remain.
Often the underlying issues are untreatable anyway and MMT is a very real help. I believe that the fact that research shows that diamorphine treatment is far more effective than MMT, proves that this is the real way forward, and should in my opinion, become the norm, to treat addicts as human beings, not outcasts, asking them which treatment they wish to try.
Forced reduction will result in relapse and deaths which are easily avoided with the right treatment.
STIGMA KILLS.
Ālso, parents caring for their children would often find forced reduction harder than non-parents, so again, it is mostly women who will suffer.
Of course, the government's desire to remove children from happy homes will thrive by deliberately making good parents less able to care for their children, reinforcing the cycle of addiction into the next generation.
Sounds like government cuts hitting the most vulnerable as usual, no more, no less.   
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am for myself only, what am I?
If not now- when?

physeptomaton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2012, 02:37:55 AM »
Is there anything on the F word, liberalconspiracy, Guardian/Independent or any of the usual hotspots with regard to this anti-woman element? Every pro-abortion argument they use can apply to methadone maintenance: better safe, cheap/free and legal than [coathangers/expensive adulterated illegal street heroin]; lack of access to [abortion/MMT] will hinder women disproportionately; it's a legal medical procedure with an evidence base for safety; removing it will hurt the poor; the big one is bodily autonomy i.e. choice over your own body; government not coming in between a woman and her doctor; moral values of a section of society should not affect medical practice for everyone.

So every woman's rights group supporting abortion rights should be on this shit right fucking now. As a pharmacophile, when it comes to treatment modalities I'm pro-choice! Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide! Also, what if (he or) she was raped!- And didn't get pregnant, but got PTSD instead which can destroy a life far more horribly than a pregnancy, and was unable to access proper support due to overstretched and understaffed mental health services. Keep your purple ribbons off my pink tablets! (cf rosaries off ovaries.)

I have to question this line about "government desire to remove children from happy homes." I am not an unreflective defender of social services and have criticised their over-zealous approach to a drug addicted mother (from the information provided) on the Protecting Our Children thread under media. But you must admit a large proportion of dependent substance users do live chaotic lifestyles. In many cases children are at risk of significant harm and the authorities cannot deal with the situation in a less coercive way without unacceptable risk to their wellbeing. The harm caused to a child who spends their first and most developmentally important five years with an unresponsive addict mother who has sex with strangers in front of him to pay for drugs, is finally removed following endless "second" chances and then stays in foster care to be pushed out at 18, when he could have had an adoptive family for life following removal in babyhood before damage was done, is devastating: without figures to hand, presumably just as likely to perpetuate the addiction cycle as one torn from a loving family by a pharmacophobic children's services team. 

You are right on about mental health services. My GP is scripting me a psychotropic medicine which local guidelines recommend serious psychiatric input for- he has kindly agreed to continue without, after consulting the PCT lead pharmacist, and I picked up this month's script today. He sent the first psychiatric referral several months ago, receiving a letter from a social worker stating I was "inappropriate" for care with no reasons, and had four letters ignored since then. The "Business Manager" (why business? This is the NHS, this is supposed to be a service for the public welfare) had contacted him to say that "unfortunately we have had no response".
"They say selling is a sin, So is telling young men that selling is a sin if you don't offer new ways to win"- Andre 3000.
Everybody is a product of their environment... some environments are just harder to survive in. For the 3-4-5-6-7-8 and anyone trapped or struggling. Still deserve respect.

seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2013, 10:28:18 AM »
"Putting full Recovery First", ummm and what if I don't want to "recover" what if I want my rights just like a drinker has their right to take their DRUG without being told to "recover"?

sapphire

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,874
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2013, 12:48:05 PM »
Well I guess they would say to you that alcohol is a legal substance that can be purchased at a super market, not a heavily controlled prescription only medication!

But I get your point, no one should ever be forced into treatment that they don't want, or is not in their best interests.

seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2014, 11:48:53 AM »
The point is that ALL drugs were legal 100 years ago until the prohibitionist went to work and ALCOHOL was the biggest killer but because of various political aspects not to mention the brewers lobbying the DRUG "alcohol" was allowed to be given out still in treatment centres...also known as PUBS. heroin was not a heavily controlled prescription only medication...nor was opium etc etc It was made so by the state and if that were the case then why shouldn't the killer drug alcohol? The fact is I get angry when I hear the word "treatment" when I take my drug of choice but if someone goes to the pub to get their drug treatment that is somehow different...it isn't. That's how you let people dominate you and make you think you have "a problem" but of course they don't have a "problem" because their drug missed being prohibited.

sapphire

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,874
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2014, 12:30:06 PM »
Yes, the fact is that if alcohol and tobacco were being classified today, they would be classified as Class A drugs.

Alcohol is infinitely more harmful than a good majority of other substances out there, and costs the NHS a small fortune every year,

fixed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2014, 02:15:35 PM »
although I have been addicted to opiates for a very long time I don't & in my mind, never have had a drug problem. I do however have a problem with the law. I just need a prescription to get me though every Day just the same as a diabetic needs a prescription. sorry, forgot where I was going with this but I think ive made my point.

simon

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,072
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2014, 10:32:13 AM »
Yes, the fact is that if alcohol and tobacco were being classified today, they would be classified as Class A drugs.

Alcohol is infinitely more harmful than a good majority of other substances out there, and costs the NHS a small fortune every year,
Maybe so but I could grow tobacco plants in my attic and make homebrew in my cellar and nobody would know and what's the chances of me being caught?

seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2014, 11:43:27 AM »
just because you like something the state hates doesn't mean you are an "addict"...if I was to say "from tomorrow no one must drink coffee" I think the reaction would be "go away" but if that were the case the state would ramp up the deception saying "people who didn't want to stop are dependant addicts who need to be helped" in a very short while there would be gangs selling coffee  and the papers would say that was "evidence" that coffee causes crime and makes victims...the fact is when you prohibit something it causes more problems than it solves. They always use the excuse "we want to prevent deaths" etc etc  well in that case they should ban mountain climbing etc because that causes deaths. Freedom is more important than a state dictating what you do with your body or indeed mind, you have the freedom to not use a drug like an idiot, why should I be chained to people who act like idiots and take to much and die?

sapphire

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,874
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2014, 01:02:43 PM »
If you're dependant on anything, whether it's legal or illegal and it is causing major problems in your life, you are addicted to it.

The legal/illegal thing is a red herring really. It doesn't matter if something is legal, like alcohol, it's when peoples' use of it starts causing issues in their life that's the problem.

I'm not really sure whether I think that legalising drugs would be a good thing or not. I definitely think that de-classifying possession for people that are addicts, so they are not criminalised just because they need a particular substance, would be a good idea.

People say that legalisation would get rid of the black market of drugs, and drive criminal gangs out of the drug trade. I'm not really sure about that, as we still have a black market for alcohol and tobacco.

Maybe so but I could grow tobacco plants in my attic and make homebrew in my cellar and nobody would know and what's the chances of me being caught?

I think I'm missing your point Simon?  :( Not feeling too good so my brain doesn't seem to be firing on all cylinders!!

seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2014, 09:34:38 PM »
Yes but in 1914 when drugs were legal we had no black market and prohibition kills...period weather through dirty drugs or contracting diseases because of having to deal with dirty drugs and people which you wouldn't have if legal as in pre 1914

sapphire

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,874
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2014, 01:23:27 PM »
Yes, but things were a lot more naļve back in 1924. Whilst there was criminality, it was not on such a large organised scale as it is now.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, yet we still have a black market for both of those, so I have no reason to believe that if drugs were legalised that the same would not be true of them.

I definitely agree with you that criminalising drugs, so they are concocted in unsanitary labs, mixed with god knows what, is not a good thing, and leads to health problems for the user.

I think I would prefer it that the range of opiate substitutes available was wider, so that if people required a diamorphine script, they could get one.

seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: Putting Full Recovery First
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2014, 09:34:41 AM »
Yes that would work too, infact until the misuse of drug act 1970/71 you could go to the doctor and get opiates, I knew a friend who did just that for 10 years and worked and got on fine.